The first milestone was September 2004 when a complete ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products was imposed in Europe. The European cosmetics industry had already moved away from testing cosmetic products on animals some time before this and in the UK animal testing has not taken place on both cosmetic products (since 1997) and their ingredients (since 1998). Voluntary initiatives by the UK cosmetics industry to surrender all licences were followed by announcements from the Home Office[1] that no more licences for cosmetics testing would be issued.

At the same time a “rolling ban” on animal testing for cosmetic ingredients was introduced. This meant that the use of a particular animal test would be banned as soon as a validated and accepted alternative testing method became available. Subsequently, as of 11 March 2009, no animal testing has been permitted in the EU, whether or not an alternative method is available.

As you can see from the above paragraph there has been a complete ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products from September 2004. And the EU cosmetic industry had already moved away from testing on animals before the ban. The UK set the benchmark with a "rolling ban" in 1997 and again in 1998 on both cosmetic products and ingredients. Yes it was a voluntary initiative for the industry to hand in their licences (all companies handed them in) because of pressure from campaign groups and large companies. The government have not given a licence to a company for cosmetic testing since and this was their promise. If a company didn't hand in their licence at the time it would just expire and no other would be issued but this was not the case.

The UK government didn't set it in law because the EU were set to change the law as we can see happening in stages. Even though the EU community still allow for three toxicology tests on animals for cosmetics this doesn't apply in the UK because there isn't a company who have a licence to test cosmetics on animals. Cosmetic testing on animals in the UK has ended.

In 2013 the ban will set in place other restrictions controlling marketing etc At the moment cosmetic products tested in other countries can be sold in the UK, this will change next year.

Quote:

The PARTICULAR test being banned is not ALL animal testing and a voluntary initiative is significantly different from a ban.

It's a "rolling ban" that is in place and will fall in line with EU legislation that will affect a total ban.

There is a loophole at present that one particular company in the UK take advantage of and this is because some cosmetic products are also used for medical purposes. The product is Botox and the company is Sequani, this will end in 2013.

I will like to add that the UK are on track to ban animal testing on household products also, so things are getting better.

The first milestone was September 2004 when a complete ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products was imposed in Europe. The European cosmetics industry had already moved away from testing cosmetic products on animals some time before this and in the UK animal testing has not taken place on both cosmetic products (since 1997) and their ingredients (since 1998). Voluntary initiatives by the UK cosmetics industry to surrender all licences were followed by announcements from the Home Office[1] that no more licences for cosmetics testing would be issued.

At the same time a “rolling ban” on animal testing for cosmetic ingredients was introduced. This meant that the use of a particular animal test would be banned as soon as a validated and accepted alternative testing method became available. Subsequently, as of 11 March 2009, no animal testing has been permitted in the EU, whether or not an alternative method is available.

As you can see from the above paragraph there has been a complete ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products from September 2004. And the EU cosmetic industry had already moved away from testing on animals before the ban. The UK set the benchmark with a "rolling ban" in 1997 and again in 1998 on both cosmetic products and ingredients. Yes it was a voluntary initiative for the industry to hand in their licences (all companies handed them in) because of pressure from campaign groups and large companies.

But the "ban" in the UK was for within the UK since that was the license portion, which did not prevent the testing elsewhere to support the products.

Quote:

The government have not given a licence to a company for cosmetic testing since and this was their promise. If a company didn't hand in their licence at the time it would just expire and no other would be issued but this was not the case.

You mean the license to perfome the tests within the UK? The tests of ingredients may be performed elsewhere or they may never include new ingredients unless they have been tested in some fashion elsewhere.

Quote:

The UK government didn't set it in law because the EU were set to change the law as we can see happening in stages. Even though the EU community still allow for three toxicology tests on animals for cosmetics this doesn't apply in the UK because there isn't a company who have a licence to test cosmetics on animals. Cosmetic testing on animals in the UK has ended.

But not testing FOR the UK ..... moving the testing off shore is not a "win" since the testing then does not have to meet the strict requirements previously employed

Quote:

In 2013 the ban will set in place other restrictions controlling marketing etc At the moment cosmetic products tested in other countries can be sold in the UK, this will change next year.

Possibly, there are indications the safety issues may prevent the implimentation of this if there are no alternative test methods. The liability issues would be huge.

Quote:

Quote:

The PARTICULAR test being banned is not ALL animal testing and a voluntary initiative is significantly different from a ban.

It's a "rolling ban" that is in place and will fall in line with EU legislation that will affect a total ban.

Will is not the same as has been .... there has been no total ban of animal testing for cosmetic products yet and may never be,

Quote:

There is a loophole at present that one particular company in the UK take advantage of and this is because some cosmetic products are also used for medical purposes. The product is Botox and the company is Sequani, this will end in 2013.

The medical usage will then not be tested or there will be some legislation to separate the usage after testing? That seems to be an unlikely option.

Quote:

I will like to add that the UK are on track to ban animal testing on household products also, so things are getting better.

Even that article indicated the 2013 deadline was questionable. Also the expected ban may not be as you expect, since there are safety issues which come into play. I am not aware of the English laws, but the ban of products which have been tested on animals would create a level of liability for the company selling untested products in the US as they would impose the prohibition against testing on the manufacturer and then sell the product to an unprotected consumer.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

But the "ban" in the UK was for within the UK since that was the license portion, which did not prevent the testing elsewhere to support the products.

I didn't claim otherwise. The fact remains that testing cosmetics on animal within the UK is banned. And in 2013 all cosmetics sold and produced in the UK will be animal cruelty free. Did you read the links I provided?

Quote:

You mean the license to perfome the tests within the UK? The tests of ingredients may be performed elsewhere or they may never include new ingredients unless they have been tested in some fashion elsewhere.

Yes we know all this but it doesn't change the fact that testing cosmetics on animals in the UK is banned.

Quote:

But not testing FOR the UK ..... moving the testing off shore is not a "win" since the testing then does not have to meet the strict requirements previously employed

Yes as we have stated contracts can be sent over seas, but that will change in 2013. Can you tell me what company contracts abroad or are you just guessing? Some will but you can't be sure can you?

Quote:

Possibly, there are indications the safety issues may prevent the implimentation of this if there are no alternative test methods. The liability issues would be huge.

As stated by the EU parliament all testing will end in 2013 regardless if a replacement is found or not. I did provede a link stating this.

Quote:

Will is not the same as has been .... there has been no total ban of animal testing for cosmetic products yet and may never be,

Yes there has been a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the UK since 1997/1998 and 2004 in the EU as we have established and the final implementation IS nailed on but the cosmetic industry have asked for it to be delayed. Even though the EU are obliged to look into the application they state that they are on target for the 2013 final implantation. So your " may never be" is a yes it's going to happen.

Quote:

The medical usage will then not be tested or there will be some legislation to separate the usage after testing? That seems to be an unlikely option.

Botox as a cosmetic will not be allowed for sale or use in the UK if it has been tested on animals under the medical testing loophole, it will be closed.

Quote:

Even that article indicated the 2013 deadline was questionable. Also the expected ban may not be as you expect, since there are safety issues which come into play. I am not aware of the English laws, but the ban of products which have been tested on animals would create a level of liability for the company selling untested products in the US as they would impose the prohibition against testing on the manufacturer and then sell the product to an unprotected consumer.

Questionable..? On target according the the EU parliament."Plans for a total EU-wide ban from 2013 on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals are still on track, the European Commission insisted today.

But the "ban" in the UK was for within the UK since that was the license portion, which did not prevent the testing elsewhere to support the products.

I didn't claim otherwise. The fact remains that testing cosmetics on animal within the UK is banned. And in 2013 all cosmetics sold and produced in the UK will be animal cruelty free. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, but I missed the part where the sold cosmetics will be "animal cruelty free" and the definition of what "animal cruelty free" will be. I also read the portions questioning whether the 2013 deadline can and will be met.

Quote:

Quote:

You mean the license to perfome the tests within the UK? The tests of ingredients may be performed elsewhere or they may never include new ingredients unless they have been tested in some fashion elsewhere.

Yes we know all this but it doesn't change the fact that testing cosmetics on animals in the UK is banned.

Yes, not testing in the UK does not mean the products are not tested as you implied.

Quote:

Quote:

But not testing FOR the UK ..... moving the testing off shore is not a "win" since the testing then does not have to meet the strict requirements previously employed

Yes as we have stated contracts can be sent over seas, but that will change in 2013.

Maybe, that is still in question according to even your links.

Quote:

Can you tell me what company contracts abroad or are you just guessing? Some will but you can't be sure can you?

They do not have to contract abroad at all. All they have to do is require the ingredients be certified safe for human usage, which will require some animal testing at some point. Something as simple as a toxicity test will ensure that.

Quote:

Quote:

Possibly, there are indications the safety issues may prevent the implimentation of this if there are no alternative test methods. The liability issues would be huge.

As stated by the EU parliament all testing will end in 2013 regardless if a replacement is found or not. I did provede a link stating this.

Yes, and you provided other links which indicated the "regardless" aspect might not be something which can be ignored. The safety concerns will have to be addressed and without tests someone will have to become liable for any injuries resulting from untested products. The EU Parliment may not hold fast to the ban without alternatives.

Quote:

Quote:

Will is not the same as has been .... there has been no total ban of animal testing for cosmetic products yet and may never be,

Yes there has been a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the UK since 1997/1998 and 2004 in the EU as we have established and the final implementation IS nailed on but the cosmetic industry have asked for it to be delayed. Even though the EU are obliged to look into the application they state that they are on target for the 2013 final implantation. So your " may never be" is a yes it's going to happen.

Not according to the links you provided.

Quote:

Quote:

The medical usage will then not be tested or there will be some legislation to separate the usage after testing? That seems to be an unlikely option.

Botox as a cosmetic will not be allowed for sale or use in the UK if it has been tested on animals under the medical testing loophole, it will be closed.

How will the usage be determined? If a medical Botox is purchased and the medical treatment has cosmetic implications how will it be handled?

Quote:

Quote:

Even that article indicated the 2013 deadline was questionable. Also the expected ban may not be as you expect, since there are safety issues which come into play. I am not aware of the English laws, but the ban of products which have been tested on animals would create a level of liability for the company selling untested products in the US as they would impose the prohibition against testing on the manufacturer and then sell the product to an unprotected consumer.

Questionable..? On target according the the EU parliament."Plans for a total EU-wide ban from 2013 on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals are still on track, the European Commission insisted today.

Yes, that is exactly what your link indicated 7:00AM BST 18 Jul 2011 after the link stating they were "on track" Tuesday 18 January 2011 .

The USA have no say in this at all. If you would have read the links you would have better understood what's going to happen.

I doubt if the US cares what the UK or EU does with the animal testing since it will not be any impact other than making the US one of the countries in which new cosmetics will be introduced under the US safety requirements. After they are proven in the US the UK and EU can then use them and claim them to be cruelty free ....

Quote:

It helps if one knows what is being discussed.

I do, but you seem to have been slightily off in several areas.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Since the concept of product liability seemed to be lost in the US references, the UK laws do show a couple of small chances at a liability defense for damages resulting from untested cosmetics.

The first would only be applicable if the technical knowledge was limited to a particular region and the legal compliance defense would be very shaky as the regulation does not require the development of new cosmetics and thus would not be an enevitable outcome. Most likely the production would be limited to previously tested components and mixtures either in other countries or in pre-2013 testing.

the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time he suppliedthe product was not such that a producer of products of the samedescription as the product in question might be expected to havediscovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they wereunder his control (the so-called “development risks defence”);

the defect was caused by complying with the law. Compliance witha regulation will not necessarily discharge a producer from liability;in order to claim the defence he would have to show that the defectwas the inevitable result of compliance;

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Since the concept of product liability seemed to be lost in the US references, the UK laws do show a couple of small chances at a liability defense for damages resulting from untested cosmetics.

The first would only be applicable if the technical knowledge was limited to a particular region and the legal compliance defense would be very shaky as the regulation does not require the development of new cosmetics and thus would not be an enevitable outcome. Most likely the production would be limited to previously tested components and mixtures either in other countries or in pre-2013 testing.

the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time he suppliedthe product was not such that a producer of products of the samedescription as the product in question might be expected to havediscovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they wereunder his control (the so-called “development risks defence”);

the defect was caused by complying with the law. Compliance witha regulation will not necessarily discharge a producer from liability;in order to claim the defence he would have to show that the defectwas the inevitable result of compliance;

I'm answering your other posts first but I would just like to add this, "things have moved on since 2001" Come on stop all this clutching at straws. We all know about liability, the implementation is still on track..

Also, I could find no references to changes coming about concerning Botox used for cosmetic purposes. It seems that Botox is produced the same way for all uses so there is not a production for medical use separated from that for cosmetic use. Given the toxicity varies between batches there would be an expectation of testing for safety regardless.

If safety testing is prohibited, who takes the liability for damage due to a higher toxicity than expected? The same question applies to whether a safety test that is required but is not as good triggers the same liability if the test is specified by the government. It seems the government would then be liable for the damages, which would be a good reason to expect the regulation to change if there are no applicable tests to ensure safety of the cosmetic products in a trustworthy fashion.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Since the concept of product liability seemed to be lost in the US references, the UK laws do show a couple of small chances at a liability defense for damages resulting from untested cosmetics.

The first would only be applicable if the technical knowledge was limited to a particular region and the legal compliance defense would be very shaky as the regulation does not require the development of new cosmetics and thus would not be an enevitable outcome. Most likely the production would be limited to previously tested components and mixtures either in other countries or in pre-2013 testing.

the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time he suppliedthe product was not such that a producer of products of the samedescription as the product in question might be expected to havediscovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they wereunder his control (the so-called “development risks defence”);

the defect was caused by complying with the law. Compliance witha regulation will not necessarily discharge a producer from liability;in order to claim the defence he would have to show that the defectwas the inevitable result of compliance;

I'm answering your other posts first but I would just like to add this, "things have moved on since 2001" Come on stop all this clutching at straws. We all know about liability, the implementation is still on track..

Not according to the most recent link you provided. If your links do not support your claims, why am I to believe they are inaccurate only in that respect?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Since the concept of product liability seemed to be lost in the US references, the UK laws do show a couple of small chances at a liability defense for damages resulting from untested cosmetics.

The first would only be applicable if the technical knowledge was limited to a particular region and the legal compliance defense would be very shaky as the regulation does not require the development of new cosmetics and thus would not be an enevitable outcome. Most likely the production would be limited to previously tested components and mixtures either in other countries or in pre-2013 testing.

the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time he suppliedthe product was not such that a producer of products of the samedescription as the product in question might be expected to havediscovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they wereunder his control (the so-called “development risks defence”);

the defect was caused by complying with the law. Compliance witha regulation will not necessarily discharge a producer from liability;in order to claim the defence he would have to show that the defectwas the inevitable result of compliance;

I'm answering your other posts first but I would just like to add this, "things have moved on since 2001" Come on stop all this clutching at straws. We all know about liability, the implementation is still on track..

Not according to the most recent link you provided. If your links do not support your claims, why am I to believe they are inaccurate only in that respect?

The links provided have all the directives on them, you choose to select older ones. This is a gradual implementation that ends with total ban in 2013, as you are well aware, it's all mapped out clearly. Stop throwing up smoke screens and plucking at straws and read where we are at today, 2012.

Since the concept of product liability seemed to be lost in the US references, the UK laws do show a couple of small chances at a liability defense for damages resulting from untested cosmetics.

The first would only be applicable if the technical knowledge was limited to a particular region and the legal compliance defense would be very shaky as the regulation does not require the development of new cosmetics and thus would not be an enevitable outcome. Most likely the production would be limited to previously tested components and mixtures either in other countries or in pre-2013 testing.

the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time he suppliedthe product was not such that a producer of products of the samedescription as the product in question might be expected to havediscovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they wereunder his control (the so-called “development risks defence”);

the defect was caused by complying with the law. Compliance witha regulation will not necessarily discharge a producer from liability;in order to claim the defence he would have to show that the defectwas the inevitable result of compliance;

I'm answering your other posts first but I would just like to add this, "things have moved on since 2001" Come on stop all this clutching at straws. We all know about liability, the implementation is still on track..

Not according to the most recent link you provided. If your links do not support your claims, why am I to believe they are inaccurate only in that respect?

tommee wrote:

The links provided have all the directives on them, you choose to select older ones. This is a gradual implementation that ends with total ban in 2013, as you are well aware, it's all mapped out clearly. Stop throwing up smoke screens and plucking at straws and read where we are at today, 2012.

No, we are speaking of the same directive and the concern the directive cannot be enacted if there are no alternative tests available at the time. The links I used are the ones you just gave us to review. If they are too old to be of use, why did you present them? The issue of liability should injury occur as a result of untested product would be just one of the legal concerns. Any directive that would stop safety testing using regardless of whether alternative methods were available seems to be the pinnacle of stupidity, IMO. That may be why so many EU nations are on the brink of bankruptcy, if the legislation is that poorly thought through.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Legislation outlawing the sale of cosmetics tested on laboratory animals by 2013 is already in place by the European Union, but there are fears it could be delayed.

They are not kidding anyone. If there is no animal research, which is undertaken prior to human testing, the research stops at that point. If it cannot be performed in the UK the research will have to move elsewhere. If that elsewhere does not have the strict regulations for the treatment of research animals who wins? Not the animals, not the researchers, not the medical industry, not the general population, and not the activists unless their only goal is to prevent research in the UK and not to stop research on animal or ensure research animals were treated well.

This is only due to the laws we have set in place. Things may change.

[b]Not likely, as there will not be any changes in the near future, unless there is an exemption given for liability for those who would be involved with the first clinical trials. If there is no liability for injury to those in clinical trials, they might bypass the animal tests, but even then I do not see the insurance carriers allowing it.

So just to recap, you are of the opinion that the total ban is unlikely to ever be implemented until the toxicology tests are replaced by an alternative and the liability "issue" is covered..?

Your persistence on quoting they maybe another delay is just a smoke screen, if it is delayed until 2017 it will be just that, a delay, it will not stop the ban.

I will get back to the rest of your posts when I finished feeding the hens.

Legislation outlawing the sale of cosmetics tested on laboratory animals by 2013 is already in place by the European Union, but there are fears it could be delayed.

They are not kidding anyone. If there is no animal research, which is undertaken prior to human testing, the research stops at that point. If it cannot be performed in the UK the research will have to move elsewhere. If that elsewhere does not have the strict regulations for the treatment of research animals who wins? Not the animals, not the researchers, not the medical industry, not the general population, and not the activists unless their only goal is to prevent research in the UK and not to stop research on animal or ensure research animals were treated well.

This is only due to the laws we have set in place. Things may change.

[b]Not likely, as there will not be any changes in the near future, unless there is an exemption given for liability for those who would be involved with the first clinical trials. If there is no liability for injury to those in clinical trials, they might bypass the animal tests, but even then I do not see the insurance carriers allowing it.

So just to recap, you are of the opinion that the total ban is unlikely to ever be implemented until the toxicology tests are replaced by an alternative and the liability "issue" is covered..?

Yes.

Quote:

You persistence on quoting they maybe another delay is just a smoke screen, if it is delayed until 2017 it will be just that, a delay, it will not stop the ban.

Or 2020? 2050? 2100? The "counting of one's chickens before they are hatched" aspect is significant. There is no real ban other than it seems the use of Draize test in some cases.

Quote:

I will get back to the rest of your posts when I finished feeding the hens.

The ones that have already hatched?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Not likely, as there will not be any changes in the near future, unless there is an exemption given for liability for those who would be involved with the first clinical trials. If there is no liability for injury to those in clinical trials, they might bypass the animal tests, but even then I do not see the insurance carriers allowing it.

I remember the cosmetic industry say much the same. It was up in arms saying they couldn't produce cosmetics without animal testing yet years after the ban in Europe they test without the use of animals and companies fall over each other proclaiming animal cruelty free products.

Laws can be change as we can see with the cosmetic industry.

Quote:

You persistence on quoting they maybe another delay is just a smoke screen, if it is delayed until 2017 it will be just that, a delay, it will not stop the ban.

Just to also recap the claim of "testing without animals" after "the ban in Europe" compared to the "delay will not stop the 'real' ban" claim. Still animal toxicity testing on cosmetics sold in Europe, yet pointing this out is a "smoke screen" on my part?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

So just to recap, you are of the opinion that the total ban is unlikely to ever be implemented until the toxicology tests are replaced by an alternative and the liability "issue" is covered..?

Quote:

Yes.

The ban at this point in time is still on target although we are aware that the cosmetic industry are hoping for another delay till 2017 when they state they will have alternatives set in place. This has yet to be decided and it's not looking variable for the industry. As it stands the industry have dragged their feet for years and have done nothing much in the way of investing into alternatives.

The EU stated that they would implement the final part of the ban with or with out the alternatives for the toxicology tests, meaning the industry would have to either develop an alternative or use other already validated chemicals instead...

The final move in 2013 is mainly for marketing and the three toxicology tests that are already banned in the UK and the EU. Some companies are testing over seas to defeat this ban others are keeping to the full ban agreement, Lush for instance.

So as it stands at the moment testing cosmetics on animals in the UK and EU is banned. Law can and are changed, like I stated. And until otherwise stated the total ban is on track.

Quote:

Or 2020? 2050? 2100? The "counting of one's chickens before they are hatched" aspect is significant. There is no real ban other than it seems the use of Draize test in some cases.

Even IF the delay is on it will not happen again, It's not likely to happen but it could yes. It would be their last delay.

Quote:

The ones that have already hatched?

Don't have any cocks so no eggs to hatch

Last edited by tommee on Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.